The opinion
ACCEPTED
03-16-00718-CV
14542563
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
1/3/2017 6:00:01 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
NO. 03-16-00718-CV
___________________________________ FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 1/3/2017 6:00:01 PM
FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT JEFFREY D. KYLE
__________________________________ Clerk
IN RE VOLKSWAGEN CLEAN DIESEL LITIGATION:
TCAA ENFORCEMENT CASE
_________________________________________
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. AND PORSCHE CARS
NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE THEIR MOTION
TO STAY MDL COURT PROCEEDINGS AND EMERGENCY REQUEST
FOR TEMPORARY STAY DURING THE PENDENCY OF THEIR STAY
MOTION
__________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:
Since Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA”) and Porsche Cars
North America, Inc. (“Porsche”) filed their Motion to Stay MDL Court
Proceedings (the “Motion to Stay”), the State of Texas filed a Motion to Compel
Discovery from VWGoA (about which the parties are scheduled to meet and
confer next week), and also sent a letter requesting to schedule numerous
depositions. VWGoA and Porsche accordingly file this Motion to Expedite a
ruling on their Motion to Stay MDL Court Proceedings. VWGoA and Porsche
further request a temporary stay of all proceedings in the MDL Court pending a
determination of their Motion to Stay.
1
I.
Since VWGoA and Porsche Filed Their Stay Motion, Plaintiffs Have
Requested Six Depositions
On December 28, 2016, Lead Counsel for the TCAA County Plaintiffs and
Government Liaison Counsel sent a letter to counsel for VWGoA and Porsche
requesting six depositions and proposing dates for those depositions in early 2017.1
That deposition letter-request was in violation of the stay described in VWGoA
and Porsche’s Motion to Stay. Unless the instant Motion to Stay is decided with
expedition, VWGoA, current and former employees of VWGoA and its affiliates,
and third parties will be required to schedule those depositions, participate in
deposition preparation, and potentially even be deposed, all in derogation of the
stay.
VWGoA and Porsche accordingly request that this Court expedite a ruling
on their Motion to Stay. Further, VWGoA and Porsche request that the Court enter
a temporary stay of all proceedings in cause number D-GN-16-000370 until their
Motion to Stay is decided.
1
The letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes as Exhibit “A.”
2
II.
Since VWGoA and Porsche Filed Their Stay Motion, the State Has Continued
to Request Other Discovery, Including Through Interrogatories and Requests
for Admissions
Today, the State filed a 147-page Motion to Compel VWGoA to Respond to
the State’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Admission.2 While that
motion is not yet set for hearing, the parties are scheduled to meet and confer
regarding VWGoA’s discovery responses, as well as the State’s Motion to Compel,
next week. Unless the instant Motion to Stay is decided with expedition, VWGoA
will be required to meet and confer with the State regarding its discovery
responses, amend its discovery responses during the pendency of VWGoA’s
appeal, and potentially engage in oral argument on the State’s Motion to Compel,
all in violation of the stay.
VWGoA accordingly requests that this Court expedite a ruling on its Motion
to Stay for this additional reason. Further, VWGoA requests that the Court enter a
temporary stay of all proceedings in cause number D-GN-16-000370 until its
Motion to Stay is decided.
2
The Motion is attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes as Exhibit “B.”
Although the Certificate of Conference states the motion was e-filed and e-served on December
30, 2016, VWGoA was not served with the motion until today.
3
III.
Conclusion & Prayer
For the above reasons, VWGoA and Porsche request the Court expedite their
Motion to Stay MDL Court Proceedings and enter a temporary stay of all
proceedings in cause number D-GN-16-000370 until the their Motion to Stay is
decided.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ C. Vernon Hartline, Jr.
C. VERNON HARTLINE, JR.
State Bar No. 09159500
hartline@flash.net
HARTLINE DACUS BARGER
DREYER LLP
8750 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1600
Dallas, Texas 75231
214-369-2100
214-369-2118 fax
And
DARRELL L. BARGER
State Bar No. 01733800
dbarger@hdbdlaw.com
HARTLINE DACUS BARGER
DREYER LLP
1980 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1800
Houston, Texas 77056
713-759-1990
713-652-2419 fax
4
And
RICHARD W. CREWS, JR.
State Bar No. 05075500
rcrews@hdbdlaw.com
HARTLINE DACUS BARGER
DREYER LLP
800 North Shoreline Blvd.
Suite 2000, North Tower
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
361-866-8000
361-866-8039 fax
And
JEFFREY L. CHASE
NY State Bar No. 1002203
jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com
MICHAEL B. GALLUB
NY State Bar No. 2141851
mgallub@herzfeld-rubin.com
HERZFELD & RUBIN, P.C.
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
212-471-8459
212-344-3333 fax
And
ROBERT J. GIUFFRA, JR.
New York State Bar 2309177
giuffrar@sullcrom.com
SHARON L. NELLES
New York State Bar 2613073
nelless@sullcrom.com
WILLIAM B. MONAHAN
New York State Bar 4229027
monahanw@sullcrom.com
5
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
212-558-4000
Fax: 212-558-3588
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA, INC., AUDI OF AMERICA,
LLC AND VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA CHATTANOOGA
OPERATIONS, LLC
And
DARREN L.MCCARTY
State Bar No. 24007631
darren.mccarty@alston.com
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
2828 North Harwood Street, Suite 1800
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 922-3400 –Telephone
(214) 922-3899 –Facsimile
COUNSEL FOR PORSCHE CARS
NORTH AMERICA, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of January, 2017, counsel for VWGoA
attempted to confer with counsel for the State of Texas and counsel for the
counties involved in TCAA Enforcement Case MDL, Cause No. D-1-GN-16-
000370 via email. Neither counsel for the State nor counsel for the counties have
responded to VWGoA’s counsel’s email at the time this motion was filed, but both
have previously indicated their opposition to a stay of all proceedings in the MDL
Court.
/s/ C. Vernon Hartline, Jr.
C. VERNON HARTLINE, JR.
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of January, 2017, a true and correct copy
of this pleading was served in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure on all known counsel of record.
/s/ C. Vernon Hartline, Jr.
C. VERNON HARTLINE, JR.
7
EXHIBIT A
December 28, 2016
C. Vernon Hartline, Jr.
Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP
8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1600
Dallas, Texas 75231
via email: vhartline@hdbdlaw.com
Darren L. McCarty
Alston & Bird
2828 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1800
Dallas, Texas 75201
via email: darren.mccarty@alston.com
Re: Master File No. D-1-GN-16-000370; In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
(MDL 15-0884); 353rd District Court of Travis County, Texas.
Master File No. D-1-GN-16-000449; In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
(MDL 15-0884); 353rd District Court of Travis County, Texas.
Dear Counsel:
We write to advise you that the members of the Plaintiffs’ Leadership intend to take the
depositions of the following witnesses in Texas MDL proceedings in the order listed:
1. Michael Horn
2. Stuart Johnson
3. Oliver Schmidt
4. Matthias Barke
5. Christopher Grundler
6. Corporate Representative to be designated
In accordance with Paragraph 5 of the “Participation in Depositions Taken in the Federal
MDL” agreement filed with the Travis County District Court on November 2, 2016, we intend to
provide notices for the above listed deponents. However, in advance of providing notice we wanted
to propose the following potential deposition dates that are acceptable to Plaintiffs’ Leadership:
P os t Of fic e B ox 12548 , Aust in, Texa s 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www. t exa satt or n eygen era l. gov
December 28, 2016
Page 2
February 13-17, 2017
February 20-24, 2017
February 27-28, 2017
March 1-3, 2017
March 6-10, 2017
Please let us know which of the above dates are workable for you and the witnesses listed.
Best regards,
/s/ Richard Warren Mithoff /s/ Patrick K. Sweeten
Richard Mithoff Patrick K. Sweeten
Lead Counsel for TCAA County Plaintiffs Government Liaison Counsel
cc: Craig Patrick, via email
EXHIBIT B
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-16-000370
IN RE VOLKSWAGEN CLEAN DIESEL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
LITIGATION: TCAA ENFORCEMENT §
CASES §
§ TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS (TRAVIS §
COUNTY CAUSE NUMBER D-1-GN-15- §
004513) § 353rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STATE OF TEXAS’ MOTION TO COMPEL VOLKSWAGEN TO RESPOND TO ITS
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
On June 3, 2016, the State of Texas (“State”) served its first written discovery requests on
Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Volkswagen”). These initial discovery requests
consisted of 14 interrogatories and 16 requests for admission. Volkswagen served its responses on
August 17, 2016, and served amended responses on September 19, 2016 and October 3, 2016. The
State sent four separate letters to Volkswagen detailing the improper objections forwarded by
Volkswagen, and the inadequate substantive responses. Each of those letters, and additional email
correspondence, included requests to confer with Volkswagen on these issues. Volkswagen
rebuffed the State’s overtures to confer. 1
There are three major issues with the responses made by Volkswagen:
• Volkswagen begins their response with a list of objections which they assert apply to each
request. However, Volkswagen also asserts some of these same objections to some, but not
all, of the specific requests. Further, Volkswagen includes improper objections in this
laundry list of objections that apply to all requests. Pursuant to TRCP 193.2(a), the party
must state specifically the legal or factual basis for any objection, and the extent to which
1
Volkswagen responded to the State’s latest request to confer, sent on December 7, 2016, by stating: “[W]e believed
(and still do believe) the State’s Appeal Stays the TCAA MDL.” This despite the fact that at the December 2, 2016
status hearing, the Court held that the State’s environmental cause is not stayed.
the party is refusing to comply with the request. If Volkswagen has any valid objections,
those have been thoroughly obscured by the use of a laundry list of objections, some of
them improper, that purport to apply to each request, and the practice of asserting some of
those same objections to specific discovery requests in many, but not all instances. An
objection obscured by numerous unfounded objections is waived unless the court excuses
the waiver for good cause shown. TRCP 193.2(e).
• Volkswagen objects to many of the State’s requests on the basis of privilege. In response
to discovery requests, Volkswagen, pursuant to TRCP 193.3, may assert a privilege.
Volkswagen must then follow the requirements of TRCP 193.3, and cannot avoid those
requirements by “objecting” on the grounds of privilege. In addition to failing to follow
the requirements of TRCP 193.3 when mounting a privilege “objection,” Volkswagen
asserts that the subject matter of the State’s requests are privileged by virtue of
Volkswagen’s German parent-company convening an “independent” investigation of the
operative facts by a law firm. Ex post facto investigation by one’s parent-company does
not create a privilege not to disclose facts relevant to the litigation. Volkswagen must
respond to such inquiries as “Who at Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. had knowledge
of the defeat devices prior to September 18, 2015?” 2 with the facts known to the
corporation. It cannot properly respond by asserting a “privilege” because Volkswagen has
communicated with counsel regarding these facts, or is aware of its parent-company’s
investigation of itself and its role in the “clean diesel” matter.
• In response to some interrogatories, Volkswagen chose to respond that documents exist
that contain the response. This is permissible under the TRCP 197.2(c); what is not
2
A paraphrase for brevity of State’s Interrogatory 5; see Exhibit A, attached.
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 2 of 19
permissible is to fail to adequately specify and, if applicable, produce or otherwise make
available the documents which contain the response—but that is what Volkswagen has
done in some instances. Until Volkswagen “specifie(s) in sufficient detail to permit [the
State] to locate and identify” the answer in produced or otherwise publicly-available
documents “as readily as can [Volkswagen],” it has not provided a response. Further, if the
information requested is not privileged, then Volkswagen cannot create a privilege as to
the information by opting to produce documents in lieu of an answer, but then withholding
the documents on the basis of a “privilege.”
Volkswagen has “successfully” used the above tactics to avoid responding to the State’s
discovery requests which were properly propounded, and reasonably seek information relevant to
this litigation. The State is entitled to a full and complete response to its discovery requests and
therefore prays that this Court will enter an Order requiring Volkswagen to withdraw its laundry
list of unfounded objections; properly, and only when valid, assert privilege and follow the
requirements of TRCP 193.3; and provide a narrative response to discovery requests rather than
seeking a privileged document to refer to, yet fail to produce as a means to avoid responding to
proper request for unprivileged factual information.
BACKGROUND
1. On June 3, 2016, the State served its First Written Discovery Requests on
Volkswagen, including 14 interrogatories and 16 requests for admissions. Attached as Exhibit A.
2. On August 17, Volkswagen served its responses and invited the State to meet and
confer to discuss. Volkswagen began its response with the 18 “Objections Applicable to All
Responses,” rather than making a specific objection for each item it wished to exclude, as required
by TRCP 193.2(a). Further, Volkswagen provided incomplete answers to the first four
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 3 of 19
Interrogatories, no substantive answers to Interrogatories 5-9 and 11-14, and answers for RFA’s
15 and 16. Attached as Exhibit B. The State notified Volkswagen that its responses were
inadequate by a letter dated September 13, 2016. Attached as Exhibit C. In the letter, the State
accepted Volkswagen's invitation to meet and confer regarding the responses, providing several
possible dates and offering to agree on other possible dates. Volkswagen declined to meet.
3. Instead, Volkswagen amended its responses on September 19, 2016. Attached as
Exhibit D. However, the responses were still inadequate. Volkswagen continued to assert
“Objections Applicable to All Responses,” rather than making a specific objection for each item
it wished to exclude, as required by TRCP 193.2(a). Volkswagen continued to provide incomplete
answers to the first four Interrogatories, and no substantive answers to Interrogatories 5-9 and 11-
14. Furthermore, Volkswagen, in its amended response, withdrew responses previously provided
by it to RFAs. In its amended response, Volkswagen provided no answers for RFA’s 1-6, 15, and
16, to which they had previously responded. The State sent a letter notifying Volkswagen of the
inadequacies on September 21, 2016, again offering to meet and confer about the responses.
Attached as Exhibit E. Volkswagen did not respond to the offer to meet, but instead exchanged e-
mail correspondences with the State on September 25, 2016, ultimately failing to fully address the
State's concerns.
4. In response to the State's letter and e-mail correspondences, Volkswagen provided
its own letter in an attempt to address the State's continued concerns with Volkswagen's responses.
Attached as Exhibit F. However, the letter failed to do so. For example, Volkswagen addressed
the State’s concerns regarding Volkswagen’s objections to requests for information on the basis
of an alleged ongoing “independent” investigation by Volkswagen AG of Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., by stating “Because the ongoing investigation is being undertaken by the
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 4 of 19
Supervisory Board of an affiliated company (not VWGoA), VWGoA does not possess knowledge
of the facts discovered as a result of that investigation at this time.” See Exhibit F. The State isn’t
asking what Volkswagen AG, as part of its investigation of its affiliate, discovered about what
VWGoA knew about the “clean diesel” matter, it is asking what VWGoA knew and knows about
the “clean diesel” matter, and VWGoA still knows what it knew and knows about the “clean
diesel” matter, despite sharing that knowledge with VW AG as part of VW AG’s investigation of
VWGofA. To assert otherwise is patently absurd.
5. Nonetheless, Volkswagen provided its Second Amended Responses on September
29, 2016. Attached as Exhibit G. The “Objections Applicable to All Responses” remain, along
with numerous unanswered requests. While Volkswagen’s responses had now been amended a
second time, Volkswagen had still not fully addressed the State’s concerns. Therefore, the State
again highlighted the issue in a letter dated October 17, 2016, and asked to meet and confer.
Attached as Exhibit H. Volkswagen, again, did not address the State’s request to meet and confer.
6. The State sent its fourth letter on the matter on November 18, 2016. Attached as
Exhibit I. In the letter, the State offered again to meet and confer prior to filing a motion with the
Court, as required by the Coordination Order entered in this MDL on October 7, 2016. Volkswagen
responded that the MDL was stayed and declined to meet and confer.
7. The State’s requested discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Specifically, the State seeks to learn which of the affected vehicles were sold
in Texas, when, where, and by whom. The State’s discovery also seeks to understand the working
of the “defeat devices” which were installed in Volkswagen vehicles for the express purpose of
circumventing environmental laws, according to sworn testimony before Congress by
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 5 of 19
Volkswagen’s former CEO, Michael Horn. Furthermore, the State’s discovery also seeks to narrow
the facts in issue in this litigation, which is directly aligned with the MDL’s goal of efficiency.
ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
8. A party must respond to written discovery in writing within the time provided by
court order or the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.1. A court may compel a
party to respond adequately to discovery requests. Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(b). Volkswagen failed to
respond adequately to Interrogatories 1-12 and RFA’s 1-6, 15, and 16.
9. Objections Applicable to All Requests. In Volkswagen’s “Objections Applicable
to All Requests,” Exhibit B, page 6-7, it objects that it cannot respond to the State’s requests
because it may not have sufficient information to fully respond or that responding would “unduly
burden” and disrupt an investigation by its German parent company. While characterized as an
“Objection Applicable to All Requests,” Volkswagen nonetheless reasserts this objection
individually to some requests (Interrogatories 5, 6, and 8-10 and RFA’s 1-4). For that reason, it is
unclear to which responses the objection actually applies. In the event that Volkswagen cannot
fully respond, TRCP 193.2(b) requires it to partially respond to extent it does not object.
Volkswagen makes the conclusory allegation that responding to whichever requests are subject to
this objection would unduly burden and disrupt an “independent investigation commissioned by
the Supervisory Board of Volkswagen AG, the parent company of VWGoA.” The person resisting
discovery has the burden to plead and prove that the request will impose an undue burden. ISK
Biotech Corp. v. Lindsay, 933 S.W.2d 565, 568-69 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, orig.
proceeding). To prove undue burden, the person resisting discovery must do more than make
conclusory allegations that the requested discovery is unduly burdensome. In re Alford Chevrolet-
Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 181 (Tex.1999). However, Volkswagen provides neither explanation nor
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 6 of 19
evidence of any such burden, aside from a skeletal reference to an internal investigation of an
unrelated party, a wholly insufficient basis for resisting discovery in this matter. The Court should
strike these objections because they are unfounded and serve to obscure any valid objections that
may exist.
10. Objections Based on Meaning of Terms: Also in Volkswagen’s “Objections
Applicable to All Responses” is Volkswagen’s objection to the terms “emission control
equipment,” “lowered emissions,” “emission testing procedures,” and “actual driving conditions.”
In that section, Volkswagen purports that it will “construe these terms consistently with their usual
and generally accepted meaning of the words and phrases in the English language.” Volkswagen
again asserts the objection in response to Interrogatories 5-10 and RFA’s 1-6, 15, and 16. Given
that Volkswagen has indicated it will construe these terms consistently with their usual and
generally accepted meaning, these objections should be struck as they are unfounded and serve to
obscure any valid objections that may exist. 3
11. Failure to Respond to Interrogatories 1-4. Volkswagen refused to fully respond
to Interrogatories 1-4. Interrogatories 1-4 seek the following information for each affected vehicle
sold in Texas: the date of sale, the VIN of the affected vehicle, the name and address of the person
who sold the affected vehicle, and the specific location where the affected vehicle was sold. The
information is directly related and clearly relevant to the claims at issue in this matter. In lieu of
an answer, Volkswagen references documents it previously produced in the Federal MDL
proceeding, documents which it represents contain the requested information. The documents do
3
Following directly on the “Objections Applicable to All Requests” is a paragraph entitled “Withholding Statement
Applicable to Any Assertion of Privilege.” In this paragraph, Volkswagen represents that it will provide privilege logs
in accordance with the schedule set forth in PTO 16 entered in the Federal MDL proceeding. Parties to the Texas
MDL are not parties to that Order, nor has that order or its analog been signed by this Court in these Texas MDL
proceedings. Therefore, the TRCP and Orders by this Court, if any, govern the production of privilege logs by the
parties to this Texas MDL.
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 7 of 19
not contain all of the requested information. The State notified Volkswagen of this deficiency in
writing and Volkswagen asked the State to specify which information is missing. The State
specified which information is missing in a letter dated November 18, 2016, attached as Exhibit I,
but Volkswagen has failed to provide a complete response. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193.1
requires the party to make a “complete response” to a discovery request. Volkswagen should be
required to provide a complete response by supplementing its responses with the missing
information.
12. Failure to Respond to Interrogatory 5. Volkswagen refused to respond to
Interrogatory 5. Interrogatory 5 requests the following information about Volkswagen
representatives with knowledge of the emission control equipment at issue in this matter: the job
title, name, and address (work location) of the Volkswagen representative, the date on which the
Volkswagen representative first became aware that any affected vehicles were equipped with a the
emission control equipment at issue in this matter, and from where or whom the Volkswagen
representative learned of such. Volkswagen first objects that the request “is argumentative, lacks
foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous and that it
assumes the existence of facts that do not exist or the occurrence of events that did not take place.”
Volkswagen’s use of “or” makes it unclear which is these objections actually apply to this
response. Volkswagen then objects that the request “seeks the discovery of information that is in
the possession, custody, or control of third parties.” The request does not seek any such
information. Volkswagen then objects that the request is a “premature contention interrogatory”
that “purports to require VWGoA to draw legal conclusions and to provide a response predicated
on legal conclusions or arguments.” The State disagrees that the request is a contention
interrogatory, but even if it were, an interrogatory may ask a party to make specific legal or factual
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 8 of 19
contentions and may ask the party to state its legal theory and describe, in general, the factual bases
for the party’s claims or defenses. TRCP 197.1. Volkswagen’s objection is both unfounded and
unintelligible. Finally, Volkswagen objects “to the extent the Interrogatory seeks information that
is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine or
any other applicable privilege or immunity.” A party should not object to discovery on the basis
that it asks for privileged information. Rather, a party must follow the procedure for asserting a
privilege under TRCP 193.3. The court should strike all of these objections because they are
unfounded and serve to obscure any valid objections that may exist.
13. Incomplete/Evasive responses to Interrogatories 6 and 7. Volkswagen provided
evasive responses to Interrogatories 6 and 7. Interrogatories 6 and 7 sought an explanation of how
the design or modification of the emission control equipment on the affected vehicles lowered
emissions from the affected vehicles during vehicle emission testing when compared to actual
driving conditions and the amount of excess emissions as a result of the design or modification.
Instead of responding, Volkswagen referenced documents it previously produced in the Federal
MDL proceeding, but did not provide adequate information to find and identify the responsive
documents. Volkswagen identified the responsive documents simply as “containing an EPA
designated brand in addition to the MDL Bates designation,” representing that these documents
are responses to 208 discovery requests previously propounded on Volkswagen by the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency. 4 Such a vague reference is not an adequate response. If the
response is to be found in documents produced in the Federal MDL database, Volkswagen should
4
It is important to note that Volkswagen has not provided the State with the discovery requests to which the documents
in the Federal MDL database are purportedly responsive, nor has Volkswagen provided the State with any transmittal
letters or other documents that would indicate which documents in the Federal MDL database are responsive to which
discovery requests served by any Federal MDL plaintiff-party. No index of these millions of documents has been
provided.
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 9 of 19
identify each particular responsive document by bates label rather than referring to a large corpus
of documents in a general manner. Volkswagen also objects to these requests “to the extent that
[they] seek expert opinion and testimony or material protected by the attorney-work-product
doctrine.” The request does not seek expert opinion or testimony. An assertion that material or
information is work product is an assertion of privilege. TRCP 192.5(d). A party should not object
to discovery on the basis that it asks for privileged information. Rather, a party must follow the
procedure for asserting a privilege under TRCP 193.3. Volkswagen objects to Interrogatory 6 on
the basis that the request “seeks the discovery of information that is in the possession, custody, or
control of third parties.” The request does not seek any such information. The court should strike
these objections because they are unfounded and serve to obscure any valid objections that may
exist.
14. Incomplete/Evasive Interrogatory 8. Volkswagen provided an evasive response
to Interrogatory 8. Interrogatory 8 asks whether the affected vehicles were equipped with emission
control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission control equipment
resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when compared to actual driving
conditions. Volkswagen responded that software in the vehicles can identify “when behavior
similar to that experienced when a testing procedure is underway” and that the “software
algorithms may affect emissions.” (emphasis added). Volkswagen should supplement its response
to directly and fully answer the question posed. Volkswagen also objects to the request on the basis
that it “seeks the discovery of information that is in the possession, custody, or control of third
parties.” The request does not seek any such information. The court should strike this objection
because it is unfounded and serves to obscure any valid objections that may exist.
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 10 of 19
15. Inadequate Response to Interrogatory 9. Volkswagen’s response to
Interrogatory 9 is a reference to its responses to Interrogatories 5 and 6. The State refers to and
incorporates paragraphs 12 and 13 above and asks the Court to strike these objections because they
are unfounded and serve to obscure any valid objections that may exist.
16. Unfounded Objections to Interrogatory 10. While Volkswagen provides an
answer to Interrogatory 10, it does so subject to numerous unfounded objections. Volkswagen first
objects that the request “is argumentative, lacks foundation, or incorporates allegations and
assertions that are disputed or erroneous and that it assumes the existence of facts that do not exist
or the occurrence of events that did not take place.” Volkswagen’s use of “or” makes it unclear
which is these objections actually apply to this response. Volkswagen then objects that the request
is a “premature contention interrogatory” that “purports to require VWGoA to draw legal
conclusions and to provide a response predicated on legal conclusions or arguments.” The State
disagrees that the request is a contention interrogatory, but even if it were, an interrogatory may
ask a party to make specific legal or factual contentions and may ask the party to state its legal
theory and describe, in general, the factual bases for the party’s claims or defenses. TRCP 197.1.
Volkswagen’s objection is both unfounded and unintelligible. Volkswagen objects “to the extent
the Interrogatory seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine or any other applicable privilege or immunity.” A
party should not object to discovery on the basis that it asks for privileged information. Rather, a
party must follow the procedure for asserting a privilege under TRCP 193.3. Volkswagen further
objects to the request to the extent that the request “purports to require the VW Entities to speculate
as to the mental state of individuals or seeks information that that is not in the possession, custody,
or control of the VW Entities.” The request does not require speculation or such information. The
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 11 of 19
Court should strike these objections because they are unfounded and serve to obscure any valid
objections that may exist.
17. Failure to Respond Interrogatories 11 and 12. Volkswagen refuses to respond to
Interrogatories 11and 12. Interrogatories 11 and 12 ask Volkswagen to state the amount of gross
profit Volkswagen made from the sale, offering for sale, and lease, or offering for lease, in the
State of Texas of any of the affected vehicles. Volkswagen refuses to respond on the grounds that
the information is not specifically maintained for vehicles sold in the State of Texas. Lack of
information or knowledge is not a proper response unless the responding party states that a
reasonable inquiry was made but the information known or easily obtainable is insufficient to
enable the responding party to admit or deny. TRCP 198.2(b). Volkswagen does not state whether
it made any inquiry at all. Volkswagen objects that the requests are overly broad and unduly
burdensome. The person resisting discovery has the burden to plead and prove that the request will
impose an undue burden. ISK Biotech Corp. v. Lindsay, 933 S.W.2d 565, 568-69 (Tex.App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, orig. proceeding). To prove undue burden, the person resisting discovery
must do more than make conclusory allegations that the requested discovery is unduly
burdensome. In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 181 (Tex.1999). However, Volkswagen
provides neither explanation nor evidence of any such burden. Volkswagen further objects that the
requests call for an expert opinion and legal conclusion. The requests call for neither. Volkswagen
further objects that the requests call for information that “is neither relevant to the claims or
defenses of any party in this matter nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” However, the gross profit is a relevant factor for determining appropriate penalties.
Finally, Volkswagen objects to the requests on the basis of several privileges. A party should not
object to discovery on the basis that it asks for privileged information. Rather, a party must follow
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 12 of 19
the procedure for asserting a privilege under TRCP 193.3. The Court should strike these objections
because they are unfounded and serve to obscure any valid objections that may exist.
18. Failure to Respond to Requests for Admission 1-4. Volkswagen refuses to admit
or deny RFA’s 1-4. These requests ask Volkswagen to admit or deny it equipped affected vehicles
with emission control equipment that was designed or modified so that the emission control
equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when compared to
actual driving conditions and to admit or deny whether such action resulted in lowered emissions
during emission testing procedures when compared to actual driving conditions. Volkswagen first
objects that the request “is argumentative, lacks foundation, or incorporates allegations and
assertions that are disputed or erroneous and that it assumes the existence of facts that do not exist
or the occurrence of events that did not take place.” Volkswagen’s use of “or” makes it unclear
which is these objections actually apply to this response. Volkswagen previously agreed to amend
its responses to answer these requests, see Exhibit F, pg. 2, but has failed to do so. The Court
should strike these objections because they are unfounded and serve to obscure any valid
objections that may exist, and Volkswagen should be ordered to answer these requests.
19. Failure to Respond to Requests for Admission 5 and 6. RFA’s 5 and 6 ask
Volkswagen to admit or deny whether the affected vehicles were equipped with emission control
equipment that was designed or modified so that the emission control equipment resulted in
lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when compared to actual driving
conditions. Volkswagen refuses to admit or deny RFA’s 5 and 6 on the grounds that “it would
require VWGoA to admit or deny based on information in the possession, custody, or control of
third parties.” Lack of information or knowledge is not a proper response unless the responding
party states that a reasonable inquiry was made but the information known or easily obtainable is
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 13 of 19
insufficient to enable the responding party to admit or deny. TRCP 198.2(b). Volkswagen does not
state whether it made any inquiry at all. Volkswagen objects to the request “to the extent that the
Request requires VWGoA to draw legal conclusions.” The requests do not require VWGoA to
draw legal conclusions.
20. Failure to Respond to Requests for Admission 15 and 16. Volkswagen refuses
to either admit or deny RFA’s 15 and 16. RFA’s 15 and 16 ask Volkswagen to either admit or
deny that, as of June 3, 2016, Volkswagen had not disabled or removed emission control equipment
from the affected vehicles that was designed or modified so that the emission control equipment
resulted in lowered emission during emission testing procedures when compared to actual driving
conditions. Volkswagen objects on the basis that RFA 15 is “vague, ambiguous and undefined
insofar as it fails to define or explain the phrases ‘emission control equipment,’ ‘lowered
emissions,’ ‘actual driving conditions,’ ‘disabled’ and ‘removed.’ However, in its response to RFA
16, Volkswagen objects only to the phrases “lowered emissions” and “actual driving conditions.”
It is unclear whether Volkswagen understands the meanings of “emission control equipment,”
“disabled, and “removed” in the context of RFA 16, which is virtually identical to RFA 15. In any
event, Volkswagen states in its fourth “Objection to All Requests,” that “subject to and without
waiving [those] Objections, in responding to the Requests, VWGoA will construe these terms
consistently with their usual and generally accepted meaning of the words and phrases in the
English language.” Volkswagen has failed to do so. The Court should strike these objections
because they are unfounded and serve to obscure any valid objections that may exist. Further,
Volkswagen should be ordered to either admit or deny in response to the request.
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 14 of 19
CONCLUSION
21. Volkswagen has failed to adequately respond to the State’s discovery requests. Its
unfounded objections should be stricken and Volkswagen should be required to provide complete,
non-evasive responses to the State’s Requests.
PRAYER
22. For these reasons, the State asks the Court to set this motion for hearing and, after
the hearing, to compel Volkswagen to withdraw unfounded laundry list objections; withdraw
improper, vague, cumulative, and inapplicable specific objections, including objections based on
privilege; comply with the provisions of TRCP 193.3 when properly asserting privilege; provide
clear reference to documents wherein responses to specific interrogatories are to be found, and
produce or otherwise make available those documents if not previously produced in this litigation;
and provide adequate and complete responses to all the State’s properly-propounded written
discovery requests.
Respectfully Submitted,
KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General
JAMES E. DAVIS
Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation
/s/ Patrick K. Sweeten
PATRICK K. SWEETEN
Senior Counsel for Civil Litigation
State Bar No. 00798537
Patrick.Sweeten@texasattorneygeneral.gov
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 15 of 19
DAVID A. TALBOT
Chief, Consumer Protection Division
State Bar No. 19618500
David.Talbot@texasattorneygeneral.gov
NANETTE DINUNZIO
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar No. 24036484
Nanette.DiNunzio@texasattorneygeneral.gov
JACOB A. PETRY
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar No. 24088219
Jacob.Petry2@texasattorneygeneral.gov
Consumer Protection Division
P.O. Box 12548 (MC-010)
Austin, Texas 78711
Telephone: (512) 463-4139
Facsimile: (512) 936-0545
KRISTOFER S. MONSON
Assistant Solicitor General
State Bar No. 24037129
Kristofer.Monson@texasattorneygeneral.gov
Office of the Attorney General
Office of the Solicitor General
P. O. Box 12548 (MC-059)
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Telephone: (512) 936-1820
ANTHONY W. BENEDICT
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar No. 02129100
Anthony.Benedict@texasattorneygeneral.gov
EMILY E. PETRICK
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar No. 24077709
Emily.Petrick@texasattorneygeneral.gov
MARK A. STEINBACH
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar No. 24056653
Mark.Steinbach@texasattorneygeneral.gov
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 16 of 19
Office of the Attorney General
Environmental Protection Division
P. O. Box 12548 (MC-066)
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Telephone: (512) 463-2012
Facsimile: (512) 390-0911
ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 17 of 19
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that efforts were made to confer with opposing counsel in order to resolve
the dispute without the necessity of court intervention and those efforts failed to result in a
resolution of the dispute.
/s/ Patrick K. Sweeten
PATRICK K. SWEETEN
Senior Counsel for Civil Litigation
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 18 of 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 30th day of December 2016, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen to Respond to Interrogatories and
Request for Admissions was electronically filed and e-served on all known counsel in this case.
/s/ Patrick K. Sweeten
PATRICK K. SWEETEN
Senior Counsel for Civil Litigation
In re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation
State of Texas’ Motion to Compel Volkswagen
to Respond its First Set of Interrogatories Page 19 of 19
EXHIBIT A
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-16-000370
IN RE VOLKSWAGEN CLEAN § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DIESEL LITIGATION: TCAA §
ENFORCEMENT CASES § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
ALL ACTIONS § 353rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STATE OF TEXAS’S FIRST WRITTEN DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
To: Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., by serving its counsel of record.
In accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193, 194, 197, and 198, the
State serves the State of Texas’s Request for Disclosure, Written Interrogatories, and
Requests for Admissions to VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
Defendant’s responses to the Request for Disclosure, Written Interrogatories, and
Requests for Admissions shall be delivered to the undersigned attorney of record within
forty-five days after service of this discovery request as provided for in Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure 194.3, 197.2, and 198.2, respectively, as modified by Paragraph 4 of the
Court’s May 23, 2016 Scheduling Order on file in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General
BRANTLEY STARR
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 1 of 15
JAMES E. DAVIS
Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation
PRISCILLA M. HUBENAK
Chief, Environmental Protection Division
/s/ Patrick K. Sweeten
PATRICK K. SWEETEN
Senior Counsel for Civil Litigation
State Bar No. 00798537
P.O. Box 12548 (MC-066)
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Phone: (512) 463-4139
Patrick.Sweeten@texasattorneygeneral.gov
LIAISON COUNSEL FOR THE STATE
OF TEXAS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of June, 2016, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests to Defendant Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc. was served on counsel for Defendant VW by certified mail,
return receipt requested, and by email and by email on all other known counsel in this
case.
/s/ Patrick K. Sweeten
PATRICK K. SWEETEN
Senior Counsel for Civil Litigation
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 2 of 15
Definitions and Instructions
1. Unless otherwise specified, the requests are limited to seeking information
relating to events that occurred during, documents created during, or documents
referring to events occurring during the time frame from January 1, 2008, to the present.
2. In the event that VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
believes that any request or interrogatory is ambiguous or has any question about the
scope or extent of the requested discovery, please contact counsel of record for the
State for clarification.
3. Unless otherwise defined, all words shall be given the normal and
customary meaning attributed to the words.
4. “You,” “your,” or “VW” means VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA, INC., its successors, predecessors, agents, employees, and all other persons
acting on behalf of VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. or its successors
or predecessors.
5. “Audi” means AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, its successors, predecessors,
agents, employees, and all other persons acting on behalf of AUDI OF AMERICA,
LLC or its successors or predecessors.
6. “Porsche” means PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., its
successors, predecessors, agents, employees, and all other persons acting on behalf of
PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., or its successors or predecessors.
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 3 of 15
7. “NOx” means oxides of nitrogen.
8. “Affected Vehicle” means the following listed automobile models:
2.0 Liter TDI Engines:
● VW Jetta TDI (Model Years 2009-2015)
● VW Jetta SportWagen TDI (Model Years 2009-2014)
● VW Golf TDI (Model Years 2010-2015)
● VW Golf SportWagen TDI (Model Year 2015)
● VW Beetle TDI and VW Beetle Convertible TDI (Model Years 2012-
2015)
● VW Passat TDI (Model Years 2012-2015)
● Audi A3 (Model Years 2010-2015)
3.0 Liter TDI Engines:
● VW Touareg (Model Years 2009-2016)
● Porsche Cayenne (Model Years 2013-2016)
● Audi A6 Quattro (Model Years 2014-2016)
● Audi A7 Quattro (Model Years 2014-2016)
● Audi A8 (Model Years 2014-2016)
● Audi A8L (Model Years 2014-2016)
● Audi Q5 (Model Years 2014-2016)
● Audi Q7 (Model Years 2009-2016)
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 4 of 15
9. “VIN” means vehicle identification number.
Request for Disclosure
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Defendant VW is requested to
disclose the information or material described in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2.
Interrogatories
1. Please state the following information for each Affected Vehicle sold in
the State of Texas by you or your agents or representatives:
A. The date of sale;
B. The VIN of the Affected Vehicle;
C. The name and address of the person who sold the Affected Vehicle; and,
D. The specific location where the Affected Vehicle was sold.
ANSWER:
2. Please state the following information for each Affected Vehicle offered
for sale in the State of Texas by you or your agents or representatives:
A. The date the Affected Vehicle was first offered for sale;
B. The VIN of the Affected Vehicle;
C. The name and address of the person who offered the Affected Vehicle
for sale; and,
D. The specific location where the Affected Vehicle was offered for sale.
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 5 of 15
ANSWER:
3. Please state the following information for each Affected Vehicle leased in
the State of Texas by you or your agents or representatives:
A. The date of lease;
B. The VIN of the Affected Vehicle;
C. The name and address of the person who leased, as lessor, the Affected
Vehicle; and,
D. The specific location where the Affected Vehicle was leased.
ANSWER:
4. Please state the following information for each Affected Vehicle offered
for lease in the State of Texas by you or your agents or representatives:
A. The date the Affected Vehicle was first offered for lease;
B. The VIN of the Affected Vehicle;
C. The name and address of the person who offered for lease, as lessor, the
Affected Vehicle; and,
D. The specific location where the Affected Vehicle was offered for lease.
ANSWER:
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 6 of 15
5. Please state the following information for each VW Representative that
knew, on or before September 17, 2015, that the Affected Vehicles were equipped with
emission control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission
control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures
when compared to actual driving conditions. As used in this Interrogatory, VW
Representative means (1) any officer, director, or board member of VW; (2) any officer,
director, manager, supervisor, or engineer of any division or department of VW that
was involved in, or responsible for, the design or modification of emission control
equipment for the Affected Vehicles; (3) any officer, director, manager, supervisor, or
engineer of any of the following VW divisions, departments, groups, or centers:
Electronic Research Lab, Design Center California, Marketing and Strategy Division,
Group Quality Division, Test Center California, Technical Center, Engineering and
Environmental Office, and Research and Development; and (4) any officer, director,
manager, supervisor, or engineer of any division, department, group, or center with
responsibility for compliance with environmental laws regarding emission control
equipment on Affected Vehicles.
A. The job title, name, and address (work location) of the VW
Representative;
B. The date on which the VW Representative first became aware that any
Affected Vehicles were equipped with emission control equipment that had been
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 7 of 15
designed or modified so that the emission control equipment resulted in lowered
emissions during emission testing procedures when compared to actual driving
conditions; and,
C. From where or whom the VW Representative learned that any Affected
Vehicles were equipped with emission control equipment that had been designed or
modified so that the emission control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during
emission testing procedures when compared to actual driving conditions.
ANSWER:
6. Please explain how the design or modification of the emission control
equipment on the Affected Vehicles lowered emissions from the Affected Vehicles
during vehicle emission testing when compared to actual driving conditions.
ANSWER:
7. For each of the Affected Vehicles, please state by how much the amount
of NOx emitted during vehicle emission testing varied from the amount of NOx emitted
during actual driving conditions. Please respond for each model and year of Affected
Vehicles (rather than for each individual Affected Vehicle). If you contend that the
amount varied depending on differences in actual driving conditions, please explain the
range and circumstances of the variation.
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 8 of 15
ANSWER:
8. Were the Affected Vehicles equipped with emission control equipment
that had been designed or modified so that the emission control equipment resulted in
lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when compared to actual driving
conditions?
ANSWER:
9. Please explain why emission control equipment that had been designed or
modified so that the emission control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during
emission testing procedures when compared to actual driving conditions was installed
in the Affected Vehicles?
ANSWER:
10. Please provide the following information for each person known to you
to have been terminated or disciplined (or who resigned or retired in lieu of termination
or discipline) as a result of the design or use in Affected Vehicles of emission control
equipment that had been designed or altered so that the emission control equipment
resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when compared to
actual driving conditions.
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 9 of 15
A. The name, job title, and former employer of the person.
B. Describe the person’s involvement in the design or use in Affected
Vehicles of emission control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the
emission control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing
procedures when compared to actual driving conditions.
ANSWER:
11. Please state the amount of gross profit you made from the sale, or offering
for sale, and lease, or offering for lease, in the State of Texas of any Affected Vehicle
with a 2.0 liter TDI engine. In your response, please state the gross profit according to
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles developed and established by the Financial
Accounting Foundation’s standard-setting Boards, the Financial Accounting Standards
Board and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, or an alternative generally
accepted accounting methodology recognized by the international financial community
for the public reporting of financial information.
ANSWER:
12. Please state the amount of gross profit you made from the sale, or offering
for sale, and lease, or offering for lease, in the State of Texas of any Affected Vehicle
with a 3.0 liter TDI engine. In your response, please state the gross profit according to
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 10 of 15
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles developed and established by the Financial
Accounting Foundation’s standard-setting Boards, the Financial Accounting Standards
Board and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, or an alternative generally
accepted accounting methodology recognized by the international financial community
for the public reporting of financial information.
ANSWER:
13. In accordance with Rule 197.1, please state the legal theories and describe
in general the factual bases for your defense that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed
because they are preempted and barred by the Federal Clean Air Act.
ANSWER:
14. In accordance with Rule 197.1, please state the legal theories and describe
in general the factual bases for your defense that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed
or abated by virtue of primary jurisdiction of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
ANSWER:
Requests for Admission
Please admit or deny the following:
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 11 of 15
1. You equipped the Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI engines with
emission control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission
control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures
when compared to actual driving conditions.
RESPONSE:
2. Your equipping the Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI engines with
emission control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission
control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures
when compared to actual driving conditions was an intentional decision made by you.
RESPONSE:
3. You equipped the Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI engines with
emission control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission
control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures
when compared to actual driving conditions.
RESPONSE:
4. Your equipping the Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI engines with
emission control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission
control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures
when compared to actual driving conditions was an intentional decision made by you.
RESPONSE:
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 12 of 15
5. The Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI engines were equipped with
emission control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission
control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures
when compared to actual driving conditions.
RESPONSE:
6. The Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI engines were equipped with
emission control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission
control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures
when compared to actual driving conditions.
RESPONSE:
7. You sold in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI
engines.
RESPONSE:
8. You sold in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI
engines.
RESPONSE:
9. You offered for sale in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter
TDI engines.
RESPONSE:
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 13 of 15
10. You offered for sale in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter
TDI engines.
RESPONSE:
11. You leased in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI
engines.
RESPONSE:
12. You leased in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI
engines.
RESPONSE:
13. You offered for lease in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter
TDI engines.
RESPONSE:
14. You offered for lease in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter
TDI engines.
RESPONSE:
15. As of June 3, 2016 you have not disabled or removed emission control
equipment from the Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI engines that was designed or
modified so that the emission control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during
emission testing procedures when compared to actual driving conditions when operated
on Texas streets, roads, and/or highways.
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 14 of 15
RESPONSE:
16. As of June 3, 2016, you have not disabled or removed emission control
equipment from the Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI engines that was designed or
modified so that the emission control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during
emission testing procedures when compared to actual driving conditions when operated
on Texas streets, roads, and/or highways.
RESPONSE:
State of Texas’s First Written Discovery Requests
to Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Page 15 of 15
EXHIBIT B
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-16-000449
IN RE VOLKSWAGEN CLEAN DIESEL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
LITIGATION: CONSUMER CASE §
§ TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ALL ACTIONS §
§ 353rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES AND
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
COMES NOW, Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA”) serves the
following Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories pursuant to Rule
197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ C. Vernon Hartline, Jr.
C. VERNON HARTLINE, JR.
State Bar No. 09159500
hartline@flash.net
HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
8750 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1600
Dallas, Texas 75231
214-369-2100
214-369-2118 fax
And
DARRELL L. BARGER
State Bar No. 01733800
dbarger@hdbdlaw.com
HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
1980 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1800
Houston, Texas 77056
713-759-1990
713-652-2419 fax
And
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 1
RICHARD W. CREWS, JR.
State Bar No. 05075500
rcrews@hdbdlaw.com
HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
800 North Shoreline Blvd, Suite 2000, North Tower
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
361-866-8000
361-866-8039 fax
And
JEFFREY L. CHASE
NY State Bar No. 1002203
jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com
(pro hac vice motion to be filed)
MICHAEL B. GALLUB
NY State Bar No. 2141851
mgallub@herzfeld-rubin.com
(pro hac vice motion to be filed)
NINGUR AKOGLU
NY State Bar No. 4314290
nakoglu@herzfeld-rubin.com
(pro hac vice motion to be filed)
HERZFELD & RUBIN, P.C.
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
212-471-8459
212-344-3333 fax
And
ROBERT J. GIUFFRA, JR.
New York State Bar 2309177
giuffrar@sullcrom.com
SHARON L. NELLES
New York State Bar 2613073
nelless@sullcrom.com
WILLIAM B. MONAHAN
New York State Bar 4229027
monahanw@sullcrom.com
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 2
212-558-4000
Fax: 212-558-3588
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC AND
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA
CHATTANOOGA OPERATIONS, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by
email in compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on August 17, 2016 on the
following counsel of record.
Via E-mail craigpatrick@att.net
Craig M. Patrick
6244 E. Lovers Lane
Dallas, Texas 75214
Via E-mail rmithoff@mithofflaw.com
Richard Mithoff
One Allen Ctr. - Penthouse
500 Dallas St.
Houston, TX 77002
Via E-mail Patrick.Sweeten@texasattorneygeneral.gov
Patrick Sweeten
Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711
Via E-mail Darren.McCarty@alston.com
Darren L. McCarty
Alston & Bird LLP
2828 North Harwood Street, Suite 1800
Dallas, Texas 75201
Via E-mail brett.solberg@dlapiper.com
william.kiniry@dlapiper.com
Brett Solberg
William Kiniry, Jr
DLA Piper LLP (US)
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 2800
Houston, Texas 77002
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 3
Via E-mail mwalters@jw.com
Mark Lewis Walters
Jackson Walker LLP
100 Congress Ave., Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701
/s/ C. Vernon Hartline, Jr.
C. VERNON HARTLINE, JR.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 4
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The responses to the Interrogatories (“Requests”) are made with specific regard to the
laws of the State of Texas, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the specific facts of this case
and are not applicable to other cases, facts or circumstances or the rules and laws of any other
state or jurisdiction concerning discovery or theories of causes of action.
Counsel for VWGoA has drafted these responses based upon the current state of
VWGoA’s knowledge and/or information regarding the information Plaintiff has requested.
VWGoA’s discovery, investigation, and analysis of this matter are continuing. Consequently,
without obligating itself to do so, VWGoA expressly reserves the right to supplement, amend,
correct, clarify or modify its Response to the Requests as further information becomes available.
Further, irrespective of whether VWGoA provides information in response to the Requests,
VWGoA reserves the right to (a) provide additional information; (b) object to further discovery;
(c) rely upon any information and documents produced in this in any hearing or proceeding,
including any hearing, proceeding or trial in this matter; and (d) challenge the authenticity or
admissibility in any proceeding, hearing or trial of any information or documents.
To the extent that VWGoA responds to any of the Requests, it does so without conceding
the materiality, admissibility or relevance of any such response.
To enhance the readability of its responses, counsel for VWGoA generally has provided
the answer first, followed by any specific objections, subject to which it has answered. By
providing an answer to each Request prior to setting forth its specific objections, VWGoA does
not waive any objections following its substantive response.
This Preliminary Statement is incorporated into all responses by reference as though fully
set forth verbatim.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 5
VWGoA is available to meet and confer with respect to these Responses, should counsel
for Plaintiff wish to do so.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The General Objections set forth below apply to the Requests generally and to each
Definition, Instruction and individual Request. Unless otherwise stated, they shall have the same
force and effect as if set forth in full in response to each Definition, Instruction and individual
Request. The absence of a specific objection in individual Request responses is neither intended,
nor should be interpreted, as an admission that information responsive to that Request exists or
as evidence that VWGoA does not object to a Request or waives any applicable privilege,
immunity, or protection. Any undertaking to search for or provide information in response to any
Request remains subject to these General Objections and to specific objections (collectively,
“Objections”) in the individual responses set forth herein. The fact that an objection is not listed
herein does not constitute a waiver of that objection or otherwise preclude VWGoA from raising
that objection at a later time.
1. VWGoA objects to the Requests insofar as investigation concerning the subject
matter of the Requests, including the independent investigation commissioned by the
Supervisory Board of Volkswagen AG, the parent company of VWGoA, is ongoing. In light of
the ongoing investigation, VWGoA states that information known or readily available may be
insufficient to enable VWGoA to fully respond to the Requests at this time. Accordingly,
VWGoA reserves the right to amend, supplement, revise, clarify or correct the responses set
forth below once the investigation commissioned by the Supervisory Board has concluded. In
addition, VWGoA interposes below objections to some Requests on the ground that the
investigation commissioned by the Supervisory Board is ongoing and privileged, and that
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 6
responses to those Requests at this time would unduly burden and be disruptive of that
investigation, and be premature in that all of the available evidence has not yet been fully
analyzed.
2. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they are vague and ambiguous,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, lacking in particularity, unreasonable, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or seek the discovery of information
that is neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party, as well as to the extent that the
Requests are unduly burdensome because they impose a significant burden, expense and
inconvenience on VWGoA.
3. VWGoA further objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to impose
burdens or obligations on VWGoA that are broader than, or inconsistent with, the permissible
scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving
these Objections, in responding to the Requests, VWGoA will construe the Requests consistently
with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. VWGoA further objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require
VWGoA to conduct anything beyond a reasonable and diligent search for readily accessible
information from readily accessible sources (including electronic sources) where responsive
information reasonably would be expected to be found. VWGoA also objects to the Requests to
the extent that they purport to require VWGoA to admit or deny facts based on the existence or
absence of information that is not or would not be centrally maintained at VWGoA by, or on
behalf of, persons believed to have significant involvement in the events at issue in the action, or
is not available from VWGoA’s current employees.
5. VWGoA further objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information or
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 7
purport to require VWGoA to admit or deny facts based on the existence or absence of
information that (i) is not in VWGoA’s possession, custody or control; or (ii) is available from a
more convenient, more efficient, less burdensome or less expensive source than VWGoA.
Subject to VWGoA’s Objections, VWGoA will consider only information in its possession,
custody, or control as of the date of this Response. VWGoA’s Response shall not be construed
as a representation regarding the existence or non-existence of information in its possession,
custody, or control.
6. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is:
(a) already in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control;
(b) publicly available or otherwise equally available to Plaintiff; or
(c) more appropriately obtained from other sources or parties by other means
of pre-trial discovery, including through Plaintiff’s review of document
productions the Plaintiff is being given access to.
7. The Responses are solely in the name of and on behalf of VWGoA. VWGoA
objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require VWGoA to provide information
that is in the possession, custody, or control of VWGoA’s parents, affiliates, or subsidiaries that
have corporate identities separate and apart from those of VWGoA on the ground that such
information is not in the possession, custody or control of VWGoA.
8. VWGoA objects to the defined terms “You”, “Your”, and “VW” and to any
Definition, Instruction or Request that incorporates those Definitions, on the ground that such
Definitions and any such Definition, Instruction, or Request
(a) seek the discovery of information that is in the possession, custody, or
control of third parties;
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 8
(b) are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and call for information that is
neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party to, or the subject
matter of, the action, and seek;
(c) are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence;
(d) fail to distinguish between distinct corporate entities;
(e) purport to require VWGoA to discern or inquire about relationships
between or among entities that are not affiliated with VWGoA;
(f) are vague, ambiguous and confusing; and
(g) seek information which is protected from disclosure under the attorney-
client privilege, the attorney-work-product doctrine or any other
applicable privilege or immunity.
9. VWGoA objects to the undefined terms “Showing,” “Reflecting,” “Relate,”
“Related,” “Referring to,” “Relating to,” “Identify” and “Documents” and “Records,” and to any
Definition, Instruction or Request that incorporates those terms, on the ground that such terms
and any Definition, Instruction or Request that incorporates them are overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and vague and ambiguous. Further, VWGoA objects to the undefined terms
“representative,” “agent,” “emission control equipment,” “emission testing procedures,” “vehicle
emission testing,” “lowered emissions,” and “actual driving conditions” on the grounds that such
terms and any Definition, Instruction or Request that incorporates them are vague, ambiguous,
unintelligible and without a clear meaning. Subject to and without waiving these Objections, in
responding to the Requests, VWGoA will construe these terms consistently with their usual and
generally accepted meaning of the words and phrases in the English language.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 9
10. VWGoA objects to the defined term “Affected Vehicles” and to any Definition,
Instruction or Request that incorporates it. The term erroneously references vehicles that do not
exist or do not have TDI engines. Affected Vehicles should be defined as, and a correct list of
Affected Vehicles should only include, the below vehicles:
• 2.0L vehicles: VW Jetta (2009-2015); VW Jetta SportWagen (2009-2014); VW
Beetle (2013-2015); VW Beetle Convertible (2013-2015); Audi A3 (2010-2013
and 2015); VW Golf (2010-2015); VW Golf SportWagen (2015); and VW Passat
(2012-2015), and
• 3.0L vehicles: Volkswagen Touareg (2009-2016); Audi A6 quattro (2014-2016);
Audi A7 quattro (2014-2016); Audi A8L (2014-2016); Audi Q5 (2014-2016);
Audi Q7 (2009-2015).
11. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek material protected by
the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the joint-defense or common-interest
privilege, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or discovery protection, or that otherwise
is protected from disclosure under applicable law . Specific objections on the grounds of
privilege are provided for emphasis and clarity only, and the absence of a specific objection is
neither intended, nor should be interpreted, as evidence that VWGoA does not object to a
Request on the basis of or waive an applicable privilege, immunity, or protection.
12. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to seek the
discovery of information that reflects trade secrets, or information that is confidential,
proprietary, commercially sensitive or competitively significant, or personal information relating
to VWGoA, their affiliates, employees or clients, customers or counterparties, or information
that is subject to other protective orders, non-disclosure agreements or other confidentiality
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 10
undertakings.
13. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require
VWGoA to draw legal conclusions, or are predicated on legal conclusions or arguments. Subject
to and without waiver of these Objections, VWGoA states that any response, or provision of
information in response to the Requests, is not intended to provide, and shall not constitute or be
construed as providing, a legal conclusion concerning any of the terms used in the Requests.
14. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they are argumentative, lack
foundation, or incorporate allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous. In
responding and objecting to any Requests, VWGoA does not admit the correctness of any such
assertions.
15. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they assume the existence of
facts that do not exist or the occurrence of events that did not take place. VWGoA’s Response
and any provision of information in response to the Requests are not intended, and shall not be
construed, as an admission that any factual predicates stated in the Requests are accurate.
16. VWGoA submits these responses without conceding the relevancy of the subject
matter of any Request, and without prejudice to its right to object to further discovery or to
object to the admissibility of any proof on the subject matter.
17. VWGoA reserves its right to all evidentiary and other legal and factual objections
at the time of trial.
18. VWGoA’s Objections are made without in any way waiving or intending to
waive, but on the contrary, with the intent to preserve:
a) all questions and/or objections as to competency, relevancy, privilege and
admissibility as evidence for any purpose of the responses or subject
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 11
matter thereof, in any subsequent proceeding or in the trial of this or any
other action;
b) the right to object on any ground to the use of these responses or the
subject matter thereof in any subsequent proceeding and in the trial of this
or any action; and
c) the right to object on any ground at any time to other discovery requests or
discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject of these
responses.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 12
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES
In addition and subject to the Objections set forth above, VWGoA sets forth the
following Specific Objections and Responses to the numbered Interrogatories.
1. Please state the following information for each Affected Vehicle sold in the State of
Texas by you or your agents or representatives:
The date of sale;
The VIN of the Affected Vehicle;
The name and address of the person who sold the Affected Vehicle; and,
The specific location where the Affected Vehicle was sold.
ANSWER: VWGoA has provided current good-faith estimates of available sales and lease
information for Affected Vehicles in documents produced in the Federal MDL (Bates stamped
VW-MDL2672-00959069 and VW-MDL2672-06547090), to which Plaintiff has access.
VWGoA objects to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent that it calls for information not
within the possession, custody or control of VWGoA. VWGoA further objects on the ground that
the Interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome, seeks information that is neither
relevant to the claims or defenses of any party to this matter, nor reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. VWGoA further objects on the ground that it calls for the
production of personal information relating to VWGoA’s customers.
2. Please state the following information for each Affected Vehicle offered for sale in
the State of Texas by you or your agents or representatives:
The date the Affected Vehicle was first offered for sale;
The VIN of the Affected Vehicle;
The name and address of the person who offered the Affected Vehicle for
sale; and,
The specific location where the Affected Vehicle was offered for sale.
ANSWER: VWGoA has provided current good-faith estimates of available sales and lease
information for Affected Vehicles in documents produced in the Federal MDL (Bates stamped
VW-MDL2672-00959069 and VW-MDL2672-06547090), to which Plaintiff has access.
VWGoA objects to Interrogatory No. 2 to the extent that it calls for information not
within the possession, custody or control of VWGoA. VWGoA further objects on the ground that
the Interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and calls for information that is neither
relevant to the claims or defenses of any party to this matter nor reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. VWGoA further objects on the ground that it calls for the
production of personal information relating to VWGoA’s customers.
3. Please state the following information for each Affected Vehicle leased in the State
of Texas by you or your agents or representatives:
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 13
The date of lease;
The VIN of the Affected Vehicle;
The name and address of the person who leased, as lessor, the Affected Vehicle; and,
The specific location where the Affected Vehicle was leased.
ANSWER: VWGoA has provided current good-faith estimates of available sales and lease
information for Affected Vehicles in documents produced in the Federal MDL (Bates stamped
VW-MDL2672-00959069 and VW-MDL2672-06547090), to which Plaintiff has access.
VWGoA objects to Interrogatory No. 3 to the extent that it calls for information not
within the possession, custody or control of VWGoA. VWGoA further objects on the ground that
the Interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither
relevant to the claims or defenses of any party to this matter nor reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. VWGoA further objects on the ground that it calls for the
production of personal information relating to VWGoA’s customers.
4. Please state the following information for each Affected Vehicle offered for lease in
the State of Texas by you or your agents or representatives:
The date the Affected Vehicle was first offered for lease;
The VIN of the Affected Vehicle;
The name and address of the person who offered for lease, as lessor, the Affected
Vehicle; and,
The specific location where the Affected Vehicle was offered for lease.
ANSWER: VWGoA has provided current good-faith estimates of available sales and lease
information for Affected Vehicles in documents produced in the Federal MDL (Bates stamped
VW-MDL2672-00959069 and VW-MDL2672-06547090), to which Plaintiff has access.
VWGoA objects to Interrogatory No. 4 to the extent that it calls for information not
within the possession, custody or control of VWGoA. VWGoA further objects on the ground that
the Interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither
relevant to the claims or defenses of any party to this matter nor reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. VWGoA further objects on the ground that the
Interrogatory calls for the production of personal information relating to VWGoA’s customers.
5. Please state the following information for each VW Representative that knew, on or
before September 17, 2015, that the Affected Vehicles were equipped with emission control
equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission control equipment
resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when compared to actual
driving conditions. As used in this Interrogatory, VW Representative means (1) any officer,
director, or board member of VW; (2) any officer, director, manager, supervisor, or
engineer of any division or department of VW that was involved in, or responsible for, the
design or modification of emission control equipment for the Affected Vehicles; (3) any
officer, director, manager, supervisor, or engineer of any of the following VW divisions,
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 14
departments, groups, or centers: Electronic Research Lab, Design Center California,
Marketing and Strategy Division, Group Quality Division, Test Center California,
Technical Center, Engineering and Environmental Office, and Research and Development;
and (4) any officer, director, manager, supervisor, or engineer of any division, department,
group, or center with responsibility for compliance with environmental laws regarding
emission control equipment on Affected Vehicles.
A. The job title, name, and address (work location) of the VW Representative;
B. The date on which the VW Representative first became aware that any
Affected Vehicles were equipped with emission control equipment that had
been designed or modified so that the emission control equipment resulted in
lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when compared to
actual driving conditions; and,
C. From where or whom the VW Representative learned that any Affected
Vehicles were equipped with emission control equipment that had been
designed or modified so that the emission control equipment resulted in
lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when compared to
actual driving conditions.
ANSWER: VWGoA objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the grounds that it is argumentative, lacks
foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous and that it
assumes the existence of facts that do not exist or the occurrence of events that did not take
place. VWGoA further objects to the Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks the discovery of
information that is in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. VWGoA further objects
to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous and undefined insofar as it fails to define or explain the
phrases “emission control equipment,” “lowered emissions,” “emission testing procedures,” and
“actual driving conditions.” VWGoA further objects to the Interrogatory on the ground that it is a
premature contention interrogatory and purports to require VWGoA to draw legal conclusions
and to provide a response predicated on legal conclusions or arguments. VWGoA further objects
on the ground that the investigation at VWGoA into the subject matter of this action, which is
part of the wider investigation commissioned by the Supervisory Board of Volkswagen AG, is
ongoing and privileged, and that a response to this Interrogatory at this time would unduly
burden and be disruptive of that investigation, and be premature in that all of the available
evidence has not yet been fully analyzed. Finally, VWGoA also objects to the extent the
Interrogatory seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege,
the attorney work-product doctrine or any other applicable privilege or immunity.
6. Please explain how the design or modification of the emission control equipment on
the Affected Vehicles lowered emissions from the Affected Vehicles during vehicle emission
testing when compared to actual driving conditions.
ANSWER: VWGoA refers to and incorporates by reference certain of its preliminary responses
to Requests for Information from the EPA pursuant to section 208 of the federal Clean Air Act
(the “208 Requests”), which will be made available to Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 15
VWGoA objects to Interrogatory No. 6 to the extent that it seeks expert opinion and
testimony or material protected by the attorney-work-product doctrine. VWGoA further objects
to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is not in VWGoA’s possession,
custody or control. VWGoA further objects on the ground that the investigation at VWGoA into
the subject matter of this action, which is part of the wider investigation commissioned by the
Supervisory Board of Volkswagen AG, is ongoing and privileged, and that a response to this
Interrogatory at this time would unduly burden and be disruptive of that investigation, and be
premature in that all of the available evidence has not yet been fully analyzed. VWGoA further
objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous and undefined insofar as it fails to define or
explain the phrases “emission control equipment,” “lowered emissions,” “vehicle emission
testing,” and “actual driving conditions.”
7. For each of the Affected Vehicles, please state by how much the amount of
NOx emitted during vehicle emission testing varied from the amount of NOx emitted
during actual driving conditions. Please respond for each model and year of Affected
Vehicles (rather than for each individual Affected Vehicle). If you contend that the amount
varied depending on differences in actual driving conditions, please explain the range and
circumstances of the variation.
ANSWER: VWGoA refers to and incorporates by reference certain of its preliminary responses
to the 208 Requests, which will be made available to Plaintiff.
VWGoA objects to Interrogatory No. 7 to the extent that it seeks expert opinion and
testimony or material protected by the attorney-work-product doctrine. VWGoA further objects
to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous and undefined insofar as it fails to define or explain the
phrases “vehicle emission testing,” and “actual driving conditions.”
8. Were the Affected Vehicles equipped with emission control equipment that had
been designed or modified so that the emission control equipment resulted in lowered
emissions during emission testing procedures when compared to actual driving conditions?
ANSWER: VWGoA states that the software algorithm installed in the Affected Vehicles can
identify when behavior similar to that experienced when a testing procedure is underway and that
software algorithms may affect emissions.
VWGoA objects to Interrogatory No. 6 to the extent it seeks information that is not in
VWGoA’s possession, custody or control. VWGoA further objects to this Interrogatory to the
extent it purports to expand the definitions set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 1803-01. VWGoA further
objects on the ground that the investigation at VWGoA into the subject matter of this action,
which is part of the wider investigation commissioned by the Supervisory Board of Volkswagen
AG, is ongoing and privileged, and that a response to this Interrogatory at this time would unduly
burden and be disruptive of that investigation, and be premature in that all of the available
evidence has not yet been fully analyzed. VWGoA further objects to this Interrogatory as vague,
ambiguous and undefined insofar as it fails to define or explain the phrases “emission control
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 16
equipment,” “lowered emissions,” “emission testing procedures,” and “actual driving
conditions.”
9. Please explain why emission control equipment that had been designed or
modified so that the emission control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during
emission testing procedures when compared to actual driving conditions was installed in
the Affected Vehicles?
ANSWER: VWGoA refers Plaintiff to its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 6.
10. Please provide the following information for each person known to you to have been
terminated or disciplined (or who resigned or retired in lieu of termination or discipline) as
a result of the design or use in Affected Vehicles of emission control equipment that had
been designed or altered so that the emission control equipment resulted in lowered
emissions during emission testing procedures when compared to actual driving conditions.
A. The name, job title, and former employer of the person.
B. Describe the person’s involvement in the design or use in Affected Vehicles of
emission control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the
emission control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission
testing procedures when compared to actual driving conditions.
ANSWER: No VWGoA employee has been terminated or disciplined as a result of the
allegations directed to the Affected Vehicles’ emission-control equipment. Mr. Michael Horn,
the former CEO of VWGoA, has left the employ of VWGoA.
VWGoA objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the grounds that it is argumentative, lacks
foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous and that it
assumes the existence of facts that do not exist or the occurrence of events that did not take
place. VWGoA also objects to the Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks the discovery of
information that is in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. VWGoA further objects
to the Interrogatory on the ground that it is a premature contention interrogatory and purports to
require VWGoA to draw legal conclusions and to provide a response predicated on legal
conclusions or arguments. VWGoA also further objects on the ground that the investigation at
VWGoA into the subject matter of this action, which is part of the wider investigation
commissioned by the Supervisory Board of Volkswagen AG, is ongoing and privileged, and that
a response to this Interrogatory at this time would unduly burden and be disruptive of that
investigation, and be premature in that all of the available evidence has not yet been fully
analyzed. VWGoA further objects to the extent the Interrogatory seeks information that is
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney-work-product doctrine or
any other applicable privilege or immunity. VWGoA further objects to this to the extent the
Interrogatory purports to require the VW Entities to speculate as to the mental state of
individuals or seeks information that is not in the possession, custody or control of the VW
Entities. VWGoA further objects on the ground that the Interrogatory calls for the production of
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 17
personal and private information relating to VWGoA’s employees. Finally, VWGoA further
objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous and undefined insofar as it fails to define or
explain the phrases “emission control equipment,” “lowered emissions,” “emission testing
procedures,” and “actual driving conditions.”
VWGoA reserves the right to supplement, correct, clarify, amend or modify its Response
to Interrogatory No. 10 as additional information becomes available.
11. Please state the amount of gross profit you made from the sale, or offering
for sale, and lease, or offering for lease, in the State of Texas of any Affected Vehicle with a
2.0 liter TDI engine. In your response, please state the gross profit according to Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles developed and established by the Financial Accounting
Foundation’s standard-setting Boards, the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board, or an alternative generally accepted
accounting methodology recognized by the international financial community for the
public reporting of financial information.
ANSWER: VWGoA states that this information is not specifically maintained for vehicles sold
in the state of Texas.
VWGoA Interrogatory No. 11 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome,
because it imposes a burden or expense on the VW Entities that outweighs its likely benefit,
taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery
in resolving the issues. VWGoA further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls
for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. VWGoA further objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is neither relevant to the claims or defenses
of any party to this matter nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. VWGoA further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it could be construed to
require the VW Entities to seek information that is in the possession, custody or control of third
persons or entities unaffiliated with the VW Entities. The VW Entities further object to this
Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for the production of information or documents that
reflect trade secrets or other information that is confidential, proprietary, commercially sensitive
or competitively significant, or information that is subject to other protective orders, non-
disclosure agreements or other confidentiality undertakings.
12. Please state the amount of gross profit you made from the sale, or offering for sale,
and lease, or offering for lease, in the State of Texas of any Affected Vehicle with a 3.0 liter
TDI engine. In your response, please state the gross profit according to Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles developed and established by the Financial Accounting Foundation’s
standard-setting Boards, the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board, or an alternative generally accepted accounting methodology
recognized by the international financial community for the public reporting of financial
information.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 18
ANSWER: VWGoA states that this information is not specifically maintained for vehicles sold
in the state of Texas.
VWGoA objects to Interrogatory No. 12 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, because it imposes a burden or expense on the VW Entities that outweighs its likely
benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’
resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the
proposed discovery in resolving the issues. VWGoA further objects to this Interrogatory on the
ground that it calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. VWGoA further objects
to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is neither relevant to the claims or
defenses of any party to this matter nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. VWGoA further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it could be
construed to require the VW Entities to seek information that is in the possession, custody or
control of third persons or entities unaffiliated with the VW Entities. The VW Entities further
object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for the production of information or
documents that reflect trade secrets or other information that is confidential, proprietary,
commercially sensitive or competitively significant, or information that is subject to other
protective orders, non-disclosure agreements or other confidentiality undertakings.
13. In accordance with Rule 197.1, please state the legal theories and describe in general
the factual bases for your defense that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because they
are preempted and barred by the Federal Clean Air Act.
ANSWER: VWGoA asserts that the Plaintiff’s case should be dismissed or abated due to
preemption by the federal Clean Air Act or by virtue of primary jurisdiction of the EPA.
VWGoA will state in detail and provide factual support for its legal argument when it moves the
Court to have the Plaintiff’s case dismissed or abated at the appropriate time in accordance with
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Scheduling Order or any other order of the Court.
VWGoA objects to the Interrogatory No. 13 to the extent that it seeks expert opinion and
testimony or material protected by the work-product doctrine and purports to require VWGoA to
marshal all of its available proof or the proof VWGoA intends to offer at trial in support of its
defenses.
14. In accordance with Rule 197.1, please state the legal theories and describe in general
the factual bases for your defense that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed or abated by
virtue of primary jurisdiction of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
ANSWER: VWGoA asserts that the Plaintiff’s case should be dismissed or abated due to
preemption by the federal Clean Air Act or by virtue of primary jurisdiction of the EPA.
VWGoA will state in detail and provide factual support for its legal argument when it moves the
Court to have the Plaintiff’s case dismissed or abated at the appropriate time in accordance with
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Scheduling Order or any other order of the Court.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 19
VWGoA objects to Interrogatory No. 14 to the extent that it seeks expert opinion and
testimony or material protected by the work-product doctrine and purports to require VWGoA to
marshal all of its available proof or the proof VWGoA intends to offer at trial in support of its
defenses. VWGoA reserves its right to supplement this response in accordance with the
applicable Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the scheduling order of the Court.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PAGE 20
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-16-000449
IN RE VOLKSWAGEN CLEAN DIESEL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
LITIGATION: CONSUMER CASE §
§ TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ALL ACTIONS §
§ 353rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES AND
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
COMES NOW, Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA”) serves the
following Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions pursuant to Rule 198
of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ C. Vernon Hartline, Jr.
C. VERNON HARTLINE, JR.
State Bar No. 09159500
hartline@flash.net
HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
8750 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1600
Dallas, Texas 75231
214-369-2100
214-369-2118 fax
And
DARRELL L. BARGER
State Bar No. 01733800
dbarger@hdbdlaw.com
HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
1980 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1800
Houston, Texas 77056
713-759-1990
713-652-2419 fax
And
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 1
RICHARD W. CREWS, JR.
State Bar No. 05075500
rcrews@hdbdlaw.com
HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
800 North Shoreline Blvd, Suite 2000, North Tower
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
361-866-8000
361-866-8039 fax
And
JEFFREY L. CHASE
NY State Bar No. 1002203
jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com
(pro hac vice motion to be filed)
MICHAEL B. GALLUB
NY State Bar No. 2141851
mgallub@herzfeld-rubin.com
(pro hac vice motion to be filed)
NINGUR AKOGLU
NY State Bar No. 4314290
nakoglu@herzfeld-rubin.com
(pro hac vice motion to be filed)
HERZFELD & RUBIN, P.C.
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
212-471-8459
212-344-3333 fax
And
ROBERT J. GIUFFRA, JR.
New York State Bar 2309177
giuffrar@sullcrom.com
SHARON L. NELLES
New York State Bar 2613073
nelless@sullcrom.com
WILLIAM B. MONAHAN
New York State Bar 4229027
monahanw@sullcrom.com
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 2
212-558-4000
Fax: 212-558-3588
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC AND
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA
CHATTANOOGA OPERATIONS, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by
email in compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on August 17, 2016 on the
following counsel of record.
Via E-mail craigpatrick@att.net
Craig M. Patrick
6244 E. Lovers Lane
Dallas, Texas 75214
Via E-mail rmithoff@mithofflaw.com
Richard Mithoff
One Allen Ctr. - Penthouse
500 Dallas St.
Houston, TX 77002
Via E-mail Patrick.Sweeten@texasattorneygeneral.gov
Patrick Sweeten
Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711
Via E-mail Darren.McCarty@alston.com
Darren L. McCarty
Alston & Bird LLP
2828 North Harwood Street, Suite 1800
Dallas, Texas 75201
Via E-mail brett.solberg@dlapiper.com
william.kiniry@dlapiper.com
Brett Solberg
William Kiniry, Jr
DLA Piper LLP (US)
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 2800
Houston, Texas 77002
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 3
Via E-mail mwalters@jw.com
Mark Lewis Walters
Jackson Walker LLP
100 Congress Ave., Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701
/s/ C. Vernon Hartline, Jr.
C. VERNON HARTLINE, JR.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 4
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The responses to the Requests for Admission (“Requests”) are made with specific regard
to the laws of the State of Texas, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the specific facts of this
case and are not applicable to other cases, facts or circumstances or the rules and laws of any
other state or jurisdiction concerning discovery or theories of causes of action.
Counsel for VWGoA has drafted these responses based upon the current state of
VWGoA’s knowledge and/or information regarding the information Plaintiff has requested.
VWGoA’s discovery, investigation, and analysis of this matter are continuing. Consequently,
without obligating itself to do so, VWGoA expressly reserves the right to supplement, amend,
correct, clarify or modify its Response to the Requests as further information becomes available.
Further, irrespective of whether VWGoA provides information in response to the Requests,
VWGoA reserves the right to (a) provide additional information; (b) object to further discovery;
(c) rely upon any information and documents produced in this in any hearing or proceeding,
including any hearing, proceeding or trial in this matter; and (d) challenge the authenticity or
admissibility in any proceeding, hearing or trial of any information or documents.
To the extent that VWGoA responds to any of the Requests, it does so without conceding
the materiality, admissibility or relevance of any such response.
To enhance the readability of its responses, counsel for VWGoA generally has provided
the answer first, followed by any specific objections, subject to which it has answered. By
providing an answer to each Request prior to setting forth its specific objections, VWGoA does
not waive any objections following its substantive response.
This Preliminary Statement is incorporated into all responses by reference as though fully
set forth verbatim.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 5
VWGoA is available to meet and confer with respect to these Responses, should counsel
for Plaintiff wish to do so.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The General Objections set forth below apply to the Requests generally and to each
Definition, Instruction and individual Request. Unless otherwise stated, they shall have the same
force and effect as if set forth in full in response to each Definition, Instruction and individual
Request. The absence of a specific objection in individual Request responses is neither intended,
nor should be interpreted, as an admission that information responsive to that Request exists or
as evidence that VWGoA does not object to a Request or waives any applicable privilege,
immunity, or protection. Any undertaking to search for or provide information in response to any
Request remains subject to these General Objections and to specific objections (collectively,
“Objections”) in the individual responses set forth herein. The fact that an objection is not listed
herein does not constitute a waiver of that objection or otherwise preclude VWGoA from raising
that objection at a later time.
1. VWGoA objects to the Requests insofar as investigation concerning the subject
matter of the Requests, including the independent investigation commissioned by the
Supervisory Board of Volkswagen AG, the parent company of VWGoA, is ongoing. In light of
the ongoing investigation, VWGoA states that information known or readily available may be
insufficient to enable VWGoA to fully respond to the Requests at this time. Accordingly,
VWGoA reserves the right to amend, supplement, revise, clarify or correct the responses set
forth below once the investigation commissioned by the Supervisory Board has concluded. In
addition, VWGoA interposes below objections to some Requests on the ground that the
investigation commissioned by the Supervisory Board is ongoing and privileged, and that
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 6
responses to those Requests at this time would unduly burden and be disruptive of that
investigation, and be premature in that all of the available evidence has not yet been fully
analyzed.
2. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they are vague and ambiguous,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, lacking in particularity, unreasonable, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or seek the discovery of information
that is neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party, as well as to the extent that the
Requests are unduly burdensome because they impose a significant burden, expense and
inconvenience on VWGoA.
3. VWGoA further objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to impose
burdens or obligations on VWGoA that are broader than, or inconsistent with, the permissible
scope of discovery under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiving
these Objections, in responding to the Requests, VWGoA will construe the Requests consistently
with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. VWGoA further objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require
VWGoA to conduct anything beyond a reasonable and diligent search for readily accessible
information from readily accessible sources (including electronic sources) where responsive
information reasonably would be expected to be found. VWGoA also objects to the Requests to
the extent that they purport to require VWGoA to admit or deny facts based on the existence or
absence of information that is not or would not be centrally maintained at VWGoA by, or on
behalf of, persons believed to have significant involvement in the events at issue in the action, or
is not available from VWGoA’s current employees.
5. VWGoA further objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information or
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 7
purport to require VWGoA to admit or deny facts based on the existence or absence of
information that (i) is not in VWGoA’s possession, custody or control; or (ii) is available from a
more convenient, more efficient, less burdensome or less expensive source than VWGoA.
Subject to VWGoA’s Objections, VWGoA will consider only information in its possession,
custody, or control as of the date of this Response. VWGoA’s Response shall not be construed
as a representation regarding the existence or non-existence of information in its possession,
custody, or control.
6. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is:
(a) already in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control;
(b) publicly available or otherwise equally available to Plaintiff; or
(c) more appropriately obtained from other sources or parties by other means
of pre-trial discovery, including through Plaintiff’s review of document
productions the Plaintiff is being given access to.
7. The Responses are solely in the name of and on behalf of VWGoA. VWGoA
objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require VWGoA to provide information
that is in the possession, custody, or control of VWGoA’s parents, affiliates, or subsidiaries that
have corporate identities separate and apart from those of VWGoA on the ground that such
information is not in the possession, custody or control of VWGoA.
8. VWGoA objects to the defined terms “You”, “Your”, and “VW” and to any
Definition, Instruction or Request that incorporates those Definitions, on the ground that such
Definitions and any such Definition, Instruction, or Request
(a) seek the discovery of information that is in the possession, custody, or
control of third parties;
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 8
(b) are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and call for information that is
neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party to, or the subject
matter of, the action, and seek;
(c) are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence;
(d) fail to distinguish between distinct corporate entities;
(e) purport to require VWGoA to discern or inquire about relationships
between or among entities that are not affiliated with VWGoA;
(f) are vague, ambiguous and confusing; and
(g) seek information which is protected from disclosure under the attorney-
client privilege, the attorney-work-product doctrine or any other
applicable privilege or immunity.
9. VWGoA objects to the undefined terms “Showing,” “Reflecting,” “Relate,”
“Related,” “Referring to,” “Relating to,” “Identify” and “Documents” and “Records,” and to any
Definition, Instruction or Request that incorporates those terms, on the ground that such terms
and any Definition, Instruction or Request that incorporates them are overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and vague and ambiguous. Further, VWGoA objects to the undefined terms
“representative,” “agent,” “emission control equipment,” “emission testing procedures,” “vehicle
emission testing,” “lowered emissions,” and “actual driving conditions” on the grounds that such
terms and any Definition, Instruction or Request that incorporates them are vague, ambiguous,
unintelligible and without a clear meaning. Subject to and without waiving these Objections, in
responding to the Requests, VWGoA will construe these terms consistently with their usual and
generally accepted meaning of the words and phrases in the English language.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 9
10. VWGoA objects to the defined term “Affected Vehicles” and to any Definition,
Instruction or Request that incorporates it. The term erroneously references vehicles that do not
exist or do not have TDI engines. Affected Vehicles should be defined as, and a correct list of
Affected Vehicles should only include, the below vehicles:
• 2.0L vehicles: VW Jetta (2009-2015); VW Jetta SportWagen (2009-2014); VW
Beetle (2013-2015); VW Beetle Convertible (2013-2015); Audi A3 (2010-2013
and 2015); VW Golf (2010-2015); VW Golf SportWagen (2015); and VW Passat
(2012-2015), and
• 3.0L vehicles: Volkswagen Touareg (2009-2016); Audi A6 quattro (2014-2016);
Audi A7 quattro (2014-2016); Audi A8L (2014-2016); Audi Q5 (2014-2016);
Audi Q7 (2009-2015).
11. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek material protected by
the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the joint-defense or common-interest
privilege, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or discovery protection, or that otherwise
is protected from disclosure under applicable law . Specific objections on the grounds of
privilege are provided for emphasis and clarity only, and the absence of a specific objection is
neither intended, nor should be interpreted, as evidence that VWGoA does not object to a
Request on the basis of or waive an applicable privilege, immunity, or protection.
12. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to seek the
discovery of information that reflects trade secrets, or information that is confidential,
proprietary, commercially sensitive or competitively significant, or personal information relating
to VWGoA, their affiliates, employees or clients, customers or counterparties, or information
that is subject to other protective orders, non-disclosure agreements or other confidentiality
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 10
undertakings.
13. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require
VWGoA to draw legal conclusions, or are predicated on legal conclusions or arguments. Subject
to and without waiver of these Objections, VWGoA states that any response, or provision of
information in response to the Requests, is not intended to provide, and shall not constitute or be
construed as providing, a legal conclusion concerning any of the terms used in the Requests.
14. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they are argumentative, lack
foundation, or incorporate allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous. In
responding and objecting to any Requests, VWGoA does not admit the correctness of any such
assertions.
15. VWGoA objects to the Requests to the extent that they assume the existence of
facts that do not exist or the occurrence of events that did not take place. VWGoA’s Response
and any provision of information in response to the Requests are not intended, and shall not be
construed, as an admission that any factual predicates stated in the Requests are accurate.
16. VWGoA submits these responses without conceding the relevancy of the subject
matter of any Request, and without prejudice to its right to object to further discovery or to
object to the admissibility of any proof on the subject matter.
17. VWGoA reserves its right to all evidentiary and other legal and factual objections
at the time of trial.
18. VWGoA’s Objections are made without in any way waiving or intending to
waive, but on the contrary, with the intent to preserve:
a) all questions and/or objections as to competency, relevancy, privilege and
admissibility as evidence for any purpose of the responses or subject
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 11
matter thereof, in any subsequent proceeding or in the trial of this or any
other action;
b) the right to object on any ground to the use of these responses or the
subject matter thereof in any subsequent proceeding and in the trial of this
or any action; and
c) the right to object on any ground at any time to other discovery requests or
discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject of these
responses.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 12
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
In addition and subject to the Objections set forth above, VWGoA sets forth the
following Specific Objections and Responses to the numbered Requests.
1. You equipped the Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI engines with emission
control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission control
equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when
compared to actual driving conditions.
RESPONSE: VWGoA denies this Request.
VWGoA objects to Request for Admission No. 1 on the grounds that it is argumentative,
lacks foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous and
that it assumes the existence of facts that do not exist or the occurrence of events that did not
take place. VWGoA further objects on the ground that the investigation at VWGoA into the
subject matter of this action, which is part of the wider investigation commissioned by the
Supervisory Board of Volkswagen AG, is ongoing and privileged, and that a response to this
Interrogatory at this time would unduly burden and be disruptive of that investigation, and be
premature in that all of the available evidence has not yet been fully analyzed. VWGoA further
objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous and undefined insofar as it fails to define or explain
the phrases “emission control equipment,” “lowered emissions,” and “actual driving conditions.”
VWGoA further objects to this Request to the extent it purports to expand the definitions set
forth in 40 C.F.R. § 1803-01. Finally, VWGoA also objects to the extent the Interrogatory seeks
information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product
doctrine or any other applicable privilege or immunity.
2. Your equipping the Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI engines with emission
control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission control
equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when
compared to actual driving conditions was an intentional decision made by you.
RESPONSE: VWGoA denies this Request.
VWGoA objects to Request for Admission No. 2 on the grounds that it is argumentative,
lacks foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous and
that it assumes the existence of facts that do not exist or the occurrence of events that did not
take place. VWGoA further objects on the ground that the investigation at VWGoA into the
subject matter of this action, which is part of the wider investigation commissioned by the
Supervisory Board of Volkswagen AG, is ongoing and privileged, and that a response to this
Interrogatory at this time would unduly burden and be disruptive of that investigation, and be
premature in that all of the available evidence has not yet been fully analyzed. VWGoA further
objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous and undefined insofar as it fails to define or explain
the phrases “lowered emissions,” and “actual driving conditions.” VWGoA further objects to this
Request to the extent it purports to expand the definitions set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 1803 01.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 13
Finally, VWGoA also objects to the extent the Interrogatory seeks information that is protected
from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine or any other
applicable privilege or immunity.
3. You equipped the Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI engines with emission
control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission control
equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when
compared to actual driving conditions.
RESPONSE: VWGoA denies this Request.
VWGoA objects to Request for Admission No. 3 on the grounds that it is argumentative,
lacks foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous and
that it assumes the existence of facts that do not exist or the occurrence of events that did not
take place. VWGoA further objects on the ground that the investigation at VWGoA into the
subject matter of this action, which is part of the wider investigation commissioned by the
Supervisory Board of Volkswagen AG, is ongoing and privileged, and that a response to this
Interrogatory at this time would unduly burden and be disruptive of that investigation, and be
premature in that all of the available evidence has not yet been fully analyzed. VWGoA further
objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous and undefined insofar as it fails to define or explain
the phrases “lowered emissions,” and “actual driving conditions.” VWGoA further objects to this
Request to the extent it purports to expand the definitions set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 1803 01.
Finally, VWGoA also objects to the extent the Interrogatory seeks information that is protected
from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine or any other
applicable privilege or immunity.
4. Your equipping the Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI engines with emission
control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission control
equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when
compared to actual driving conditions was an intentional decision made by you.
RESPONSE: VWGoA denies this Request.
VWGoA objects to Request for Admission No. 4 on the grounds that it is argumentative,
lacks foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous and
that it assumes the existence of facts that do not exist or the occurrence of events that did not
take place. VWGoA further objects on the ground that the investigation at VWGoA into the
subject matter of this action, which is part of the wider investigation commissioned by the
Supervisory Board of Volkswagen AG, is ongoing and privileged, and that a response to this
Interrogatory at this time would unduly burden and be disruptive of that investigation, and be
premature in that all of the available evidence has not yet been fully analyzed. VWGoA further
objects to the extent that the Request purports to require VWGoA to draw legal conclusions.
VWGoA further objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous and undefined insofar as it fails to
define or explain the phrases “lowered emissions,” and “actual driving conditions.” VWGoA
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 14
further objects to this Request to the extent it purports to expand the definitions set forth in 40
C.F.R. § 1803 01. Finally, VWGoA also objects to the extent the Interrogatory seeks information
that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney-work-product
doctrine or any other applicable privilege or immunity.
5. The Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI engines were equipped with emission
control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission control
equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when
compared to actual driving conditions.
RESPONSE: VWGoA denies this Request, but admits that the software algorithm installed in
the Affected Vehicles can identify when behavior similar to that experienced when a testing
procedure is underway and that software algorithms may affect emissions.
VWGoA objects to Request for Admission No. 5 on the ground that it seeks information
that is in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. VWGoA further objects to the extent
that the Request purports to require VWGoA to draw legal conclusions. VWGoA further objects
to this Request as vague, ambiguous and undefined insofar as it fails to define or explain the
phrases “emission control equipment,” “lowered emissions,” and “actual driving conditions.”
VWGoA further objects to this Request to the extent it purports to expand the definitions set
forth in 40 C.F.R. § 1803 01. Finally, VWGoA also objects to the extent the Interrogatory seeks
information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney-work-
product doctrine or any other applicable privilege or immunity.
6. The Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI engines were equipped with emission
control equipment that had been designed or modified so that the emission control
equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing procedures when
compared to actual driving conditions.
RESPONSE: VWGoA denies this Request, but admits that the software algorithm installed in
the Affected Vehicles can identify when behavior similar to that experienced when a testing
procedure is underway and that software algorithms may affect emissions.
VWGoA objects to Request for Admission No. 6 on the ground that it seeks information
that is in the possession, custody, or control of third parties. VWGoA further objects to the extent
that the Request purports to require VWGoA to draw legal conclusions. VWGoA further objects
to this Request as vague, ambiguous and undefined insofar as it fails to define or explain the
phrases “emission control equipment,” “lowered emissions,” and “actual driving conditions.”
VWGoA further objects to this Request to the extent it purports to expand the definitions set
forth in 40 C.F.R. § 1803 01. Finally, VWGoA also objects to the extent the Interrogatory seeks
information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product
doctrine or any other applicable privilege or immunity.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 15
7. You sold in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI engines.
RESPONSE: VWGoA admits this Request to the extent it sold Affected Vehicles solely to
authorized VW and Audi dealerships in the State of Texas.
8. You sold in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI engines.
RESPONSE: VWGoA admits this Request to the extent it sold Affected Vehicles solely to
authorized VW and Audi dealerships in the State of Texas.
9. You offered for sale in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI
engines.
RESPONSE: VWGoA admits this Request to the extent it offered for sale Affected Vehicles
solely to authorized VW and Audi dealerships in the State of Texas.
10. You offered for sale in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI
engines.
RESPONSE: VWGoA admits this Request to the extent it offered for sale Affected Vehicles
solely to authorized VW and Audi dealerships in the State of Texas.
11. You leased in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI engines.
RESPONSE: VWGoA admits this Request to the extent it leased Affected Vehicles solely
through authorized VW and Audi dealerships in the State of Texas.
12. You leased in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI engines.
RESPONSE: VWGoA admits this Request to the extent it leased Affected Vehicles solely
through authorized VW and Audi dealerships in the State of Texas.
13. You offered for lease in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI
engines.
RESPONSE: VWGoA admits this Request to the extent it offered for lease Affected Vehicles
solely through authorized VW and Audi dealerships in the State of Texas.
14. You offered for lease in the State of Texas Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 16
engines.
RESPONSE: VWGoA admits this Request to the extent it offered for lease Affected Vehicles
solely through authorized VW and Audi dealerships in the State of Texas.
15. As of June 3, 2016 you have not disabled or removed emission control equipment
from the Affected Vehicles with 2.0 Liter TDI engines that was designed or modified so that
the emission control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing
procedures when compared to actual driving conditions when operated on Texas streets,
roads, and/or highways.
RESPONSE: VWGoA admits that it has not disabled or removed any emission control
equipment from the Affected Vehicles as of June 3, 2016. VWGoA denies the remainder of this
Request as unintelligible and refers to its Response to Request No. 5.
VWGoA objects to Request for Admission No. 15 on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous and undefined insofar as it fails to define or explain the phrases “emission control
equipment,” “lowered emissions,” “actual driving conditions,” “disabled” and “removed.”
16. As of June 3, 2016, you have not disabled or removed emission control equipment
from the Affected Vehicles with 3.0 Liter TDI engines that was designed or modified so that
the emission control equipment resulted in lowered emissions during emission testing
procedures when compared to actual driving conditions when operated on Texas streets,
roads, and/or highways.
RESPONSE: VWGoA admits that it has not disabled or removed any emission control
equipment from the Affected Vehicles as of June 3, 2016. VWGoA denies the remainder of this
Request as unintelligible and refers to its Response to Request No. 5.
VWGoA objects to Request for Admission No. 16 on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous and undefined insofar as it fails to define or explain the phrases “lowered emissions,”
and “actual driving conditions.”
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PAGE 17
EXHIBIT C
September 13, 2016
Via email
Mr. C. Vernon Hartline, Jr.
Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP
8750 N. Central Expy., Ste. 1600
Dallas, Texas 75231
Re: In Re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: TCAA Enforcement Cases, Cause No. D-1-
GN-16-000370, pending in the 353rd District Court of Travis County, Texas.
Dear Mr. Hartline:
I have had an opportunity to review your Responses to the State’s Requests for
Production, Requests for Disclosure, and Requests for Admissions. VWGoA’s
responses to that discovery are inadequate.
The State accepts your invitation to meet and confer regarding the responses tendered
by Defendant. We suggest that we meet and confer at your earliest available date, and,
to that end, would propose a meeting on Friday September 16th, Monday September
19th or another mutually agreeable date.
The State will be prepared to address your Responses in detail when we meet. However,
there are two overarching issues that we encourage you to consider and be prepared to
address prior to our meeting:
1. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(e) provides that “[a]n objection that is not made within the
time required, or that is obscured by numerous unfounded objections, is waived
unless the court excuses the waiver for good cause shown.” Notwithstanding
this limitation, it appears that VWGoA seeks to reserve the right to lodge
additional objections in the future and asserted so many non-specific objections
that any potentially valid objections are obscured. In short, your answers violate
the substance and spirit of TRCP 193.2(e) and we will be asking that you amend
your answers in light of the clear intent of the rules.
P os t Of fic e B ox 12548 , Aust in, Texa s 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www. t exa satt or n eygen era l. gov
Mr. C. Vernon Hartline Page 2 of 2
2. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.2(f) notes that parties should not object to written discovery
on the basis of privilege, but rather comply with Rule 193.3. Among other things,
that rule requires that a “party must state--in the response (or an amended or
supplemental response) or in a separate document--that:
(1) information or material responsive to the request has been
withheld,
(2) the request to which the information or material relates, and
(3) the privilege or privileges asserted.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.3(a). VWGoA’s Responses do not appear to have complied
with this rule and, as they are currently presented, render it impossible to identify
if, and what, privileged information, if any, has been withheld.
I look forward to your response and an opportunity to meet to discuss VWGoA’s
Responses to the State’s discovery requests. As noted above, when we meet , the State
will address more particularized issues with regard to each of the discovery requests,
and responses, at issue.
Should you wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
/s/ Patrick K. Sweeten
PATRICK K. SWEETEN
Senior Counsel for Civil Litigation
Office of the Texas Attorney General
Patrick.Sweeten@texasattorneygeneral.gov
Telephone: (512) 463-4139
Facsimile: (512) 936-0545
EXHIBIT D
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-16-000370
IN RE VOLKSWAGEN CLEAN DIESEL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
LITIGATION: TCAA ENFORCEMENT §
CASES §
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
AND §
§
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS §
§
Plaintiff Intervenor §
§
v. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, §
INC.; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC §
§
Defendants. §
§
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS (TRAVIS §
COUNTY CAUSE NUMBER D-1-GN-15- §
004513) § 353rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S FIRST AMENDED
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
COMES NOW, Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA”) serves the
following Amended Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories pursuant
to Rule 197 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
DEFENDANT VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
FIRST AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.